ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of helical blade versus lag screw in intertrochanteric fractures of the elderly treated with proximal femoral nail: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Appropriate treatment for nail breakage following femur intertrochanteric fractures without additional reduction: case series and literature review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Review
- Forces required to dynamize sliding screws in gamma nail and selfdynamizable internal fixator.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWhen a hip screw needs to be changed, choosing between the conventional (C-type) and helical blade (H-type) types is difficult. In this biomechanical study, we compared these two screw types relative to the type of the initial screw used.
methodsC- or H-type screws were inserted (leading screw) in three types of polyurethane bone models (Sawbone, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Washington, USA: 130 × 180 × 40 mm) of different bone mineral densities (pounds per cubic feet [PCF] 5, 80 kg/m
resultsThe original C screw was superior in PO strength, and the original H-type screw was superior in rotational strength. When the C- or H-type screw was the leading screw, using the C-type screw again as the following screw (C1-C2, H1-C2) showed the greatest resistance to PO, and using the H-type screw as the following screw (C1-H2, H1-H2) showed superior resistance to rotational strength. However, the rotational strength of the C2 screw decreased by more than 50% compared with that of the original C screw. Moreover, the PO and rotational strengths of the H2 screw decreased to less than 30% overall compared with those of the original H screw.
conclusionThe H-type screw should be used for second-time screw insertion procedures in cases where it is difficult to choose between PO and rotational strengths.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.